Skip to main content
Glama
omiss-mcp

omiss-mcp

by qso-graph

Omiss Net Statistics

omiss_net_statistics
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves OMISS net statistics for the last 52 weeks, including nets per band, last net by band, and check-in/net-control leaderboards, with optional state check-in details.

Instructions

Get OMISS net statistics for the last 52 weeks: nets per band, the last net on each band, and the leaderboards (most check-ins, most nets as net control).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "omiss_net_statistics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoHow many leaderboard entries (default 10, at most 50).
stateNoAlso give this state's last check-in on each band (2 letters, e.g. ID).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context with the fixed 52-week window and what statistics are computed, but it does not discuss freshness, rate limits, or aggregation constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the returned categories. Every clause contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, has full schema coverage, has an output schema, and has annotations covering its safety profile. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it returns and when to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning for 'top' or 'state' beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get OMISS net statistics') plus the exact scope ('last 52 weeks') and the categories returned: nets per band, last net per band, and leaderboards. This clearly distinguishes aggregate statistics from sibling tools like omiss_checkin_history and omiss_member_lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 52-week window and leaderboard contents imply when to use it for aggregate statistics, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative among the many OMISS siblings. Usage is inferable but not fully routed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.